The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.

179 –190, 2000

Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0197-4556/00/$–see front matter
PII S0197-4556(00)00051-4

KINETIC FAMILY DRAWING SCORING METHOD

FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES

PATRICIA WEGMANN, MD, and VIJA B. LUSEBRINK, PhD, ATR-BC*

Introduction authors compared the KFD test with other psycholog-

Culture shapes the psychology of individuals.
Emotions are probably similar for all humans, how-
ever, the expression of emotions is indeed culturally
mediated. Most of the techniques used in psychother-
apy and for assessment were developed by Americans
or Europeans. More and more often, therapists are
confronted with people from different cultures and
feel the need to adapt their techniques to fit the cul-
tural background of their patients. Research is needed
to examine the influence of different cultures on psy-
chological techniques and to verify the validity of
assessment tests used on patients from these cultures.
Family patterns and social interactions vary widely
from one culture to another. Kinetic Family Drawing
(KFD; Burns & Kaufman, 1970), a widely used pro-
jective drawing assessment test to measure family
dynamics, is a promising test for cultural studies. It
was developed in the United States by two American
authors, Burns and Kaufman, who empirically de-
fined the criteria of analysis over several years. In
their detailed review of the literature on the KFD
technique, Handler and Habenicht (1994) listed stud-
ies that investigate cultural norms. Many clinicians
appear to use the KFD test with non-Caucasian pop-
ulations without considering the impact of the child’s
culture on the drawing (Cabacungan, 1985; Fukada,
1990; Ledesma, 1979; McNight-Taylor, 1974). Some
ical tests to verify its validity for non-Caucasian-
American children (Cho, 1987; Shaw, 1989). These
authors made the assumption that the other psycho-
logical tests used are valid for non-Caucasian-Amer-
ican populations. Research that investigates the valid-
ity of the KFD test with non-American children is
rare. A few studies compare American-Caucasian
KFDs with those drawn by children from other cul-
tures; and they usually conclude that there are cultural
influences on the drawing results. Chuah (1992) com-
pared KFDs of Chinese-American families with those
of Caucasian-American families. She concluded that
KFDs illustrate cultural influences, and that KFDs are
probably a useful tool to investigate the acculturation
process (i.e., the assimilation of the American culture
by the Chinese-American families). Nuttall, Chieh,
and Nuttall (1988) compared KFDs of Chinese chil-
dren from Beijing with those of American children.
They concluded that the drawings reflect the social
values and norms of the two cultures. Urrabazo
(1986) compared KFDs of Hispanic children with
Burns and Kaufman’s normative sample and ascer-
tained differences in the activities of the parental fig-
ures. Chartouni (1992) compared KFDs of American-
Lebanese children with KFDs of American-Caucasian
children. Chartouni concluded that the KFD test is a
useful tool to show cultural differences in family life-

Patricia Wegmann is a psychiatrist and psychotherapist in private practice (CH-1052 Le Mont, Switzerland), who is completing work on her
medical PhD at Geneva University, Switzerland.
Vija B. Lusebrink is Professor Emerita and resides in Palo Alto, California.
The authors wish to thank François Ferrero, Stephan Morgenthaler, Alain Wegmann, Holly Cogliati, Janis Yoshikawa and Sue Parker for their
assistance on this study.

179
180 WEGMANN AND LUSEBRINK
styles. Unfortunately, none of these authors described
their methods clearly. When they presented their scor-
ing sheets, usually there were no clear definitions of
the variables. Consequently, a duplication of their
studies, or the application of these studies to children
from other cultures, is not possible. This is all the
more unfortunate because there is no consensus on the
scoring method used for the KFD. We agree with
Handler and Habenicht (1994) when she states, “un-
fortunately, the KFD technique has not been subject
to adequate critical research evaluation” and, “the
KFD still remains primarily a clinical instrument with
inadequate norms and questionable validity” (p. 441).
Many authors have criticized Burns and Kaufman for
their subjective interpretation of their variables. Most
researchers have modified, without consensus, the
Burns and Kaufman (1972) scoring system by adding
new variables or by modifying their definitions. As a
result, the variables are differently interpreted,
thereby making the comparison of results difficult or
impossible.
To be able to study cultural influences with the
KFD test, we need a reliable scoring method with
clearly defined variables. In order for KFD to be a
valid research tool, the definition of the variables
must be standardized. The purpose of this study is to
describe and validate a scoring method that can be
effectively used by other researchers or clinicians and
with people from varying cultures. In this article, we
focused our attention on the reliability of the variables
of three different populations.
We combined variables from Burns and Kauf-
man’s (1972) method with variables found through
literature review. Then, we collected KFD drawings
from children (7–10 years old) from three different
continents. Two judges scored all the drawings. In
order to verify the accuracy of the definitions of the
variables, we calculated the percentage of identical
answers between the judges. We then compared the
results among the three populations. We hypothesized
that this scoring method is reliable and that its reli-
ability is independent from the cultural background of
the child.
Scoring System
We set a scoring system combining criteria used in
other studies with Burns and Kaufman’s (1972) cri-
teria. And we added a few new criteria of our own.
We determined a set of 44 variables, including 24
“objects and symbols.” Inspired by Burns and Kauf-
man’s writings (1970, 1972), we looked through the
drawings and subjectively chose the objects and sym-
bols most frequently drawn by the children in this
study.
The 20 variables are organized into six categories:
18 are descriptive features and 2 are numerical mea-
surements.
Family Composition
The first category analyzes the family members
that are drawn, or not drawn, and their sizes. We
focused on the major figures: the self, the mother and
the father. This category contains four variables.
Major figure missing. Burns and Kaufman (1972)
proposed a variable called omission of figures
whereby they search for any family members missing.
As the definition of family members may vary widely
from one culture to another—nuclear families or ex-
tended families—we found it interesting to compare
the presence or absence of the major figures between
the cultures. Hence, we define major figure missing as
a major figure that is left out of the drawing.
Major figure’s erasure. Burns and Kaufman
(1972) proposed a variable called erasure where they
search for any erasure on the figures of family mem-
bers. With the same reasoning as above, we decided
to focus on the erasure of only the major figures. The
KFD authors did not define erasure. We define major
figure’s erasure as a significant erasure of the self,
mother or father where the Gestalt of the figure is
altered. We believe that an erasure of a detail that is
redrawn in a similar way does not have the same
meaning as a significant erasure, which indicates am-
bivalence towards the figure.
Extended family members added. In their cultural
studies, Nuttall et al. (1988) and Chuah (1992) ob-
served whether extended family members were
drawn. As the definition of family varies from one
culture to another, we found it very promising to add
a variable related to the extended family. Therefore,
we define extended family members added where any
members other than self, mother, father or siblings are
drawn. They are counted and scored accordingly.
Size of figures. Burns and Kaufman (1972) pro-
posed to measure the size of figures in their KFD grid
and analysis sheet. They felt it could be a useful
variable for cultural studies. Unfortunately, they did
not define how to measure the figures, especially
when they are curved or partially hidden. We define
size of figures as the measurement, of the major fig-
 KFD SCORING METHOD
ures, in millimeters following the midline of the body.
If a figure is curved, its size is measured as the short-
est distance between the head and the feet. If a figure
is partially hidden, the judge only measures what is
drawn, without estimating the probable size of the
figure.
Distance and Closeness
The second category explores the relative position
between the figure of the self and the parental figures.
It contains five variables.
1. Distance between figures. Burns and Kaufman
(1972) proposed to measure the distance between
the self and the other figures in their KFD grid and
analysis sheet. They did not explain how. We de-
fine distance between the figures as the closest
distance between any body parts of any two major
figures.
2. Compartmentalization. This variable proposed by
Burns and Kaufman (1970) was not clearly de-
fined despite the numerous examples of drawings
given in their books. We propose to define com-
partmentalization as lines that organize space and
structure the entire drawing. In order to be consid-
ered as compartmentalization, all the figures must
be placed in a compartment.
3. Encapsulation. This is a variable proposed by
Burns and Kaufman (1972). They were interested
in its presence or absence in the drawing. They
gave many examples of encapsulation, but they
did not clearly define it. We found it more mean-
ingful to score the encapsulated figures. We define
encapsulation as the lines that enclose or encircle
a whole figure, as if the figure were in a capsule
and separated from the others in its own con-
strained space. The capsule may border on the
edge of the paper. Two figures may be enclosed
together. When lines are part of an object, we
consider them as an encapsulation only if the fig-
ure appears isolated from the others.
4. Barrier. This is a variable proposed by O’Brien
and Patton (1974). It was widely used with slightly
different definitions by many authors (Chuah,
1992; Habenicht, personal communication, April
26, 1996; Elin & Nucho, 1979; Reynolds, 1978).
We propose to score barrier when two figures are
separated by an object or by lines—including the
lines of a compartment or of an encapsulation.
It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between com-
181
partmentalization, encapsulation and barrier. Com-
partmentalization concerns all or most of the surface
of the drawing. Barrier concerns the accessibility of
any two figures, whereas encapsulation usually con-
cerns one figure, although sometimes many figures
may be encapsulated separately or together.
5. Figure ascendance. In their KFD grid and analysis
sheet, Burns and Kaufman (1972) proposed to in-
vestigate the relative placement of the figures.
They suggested that it could be useful information
for cultural studies. But they did not explain how
to analyse the location of the figures. In her anal-
ysis sheet, Habenicht (personal communication,
April 26, 1996) defined a figure ascendance vari-
able. She scored the position of the head on the
vertical axis. We assume that the position of the
figure on the vertical axis, as well as the position
on the horizontal axis, provides valuable informa-
tion. We propose the use of a transparent grid that
divides the page in eight parts. If the head is lo-
cated within two (or more) zones, the zone with
the biggest part of the head is scored.
Interactions and Relationship
The third category analyses the interaction and
relationship between the major figures. It contains
three variables.
1. Level of interaction. Burns and Kaufman (1972)
categorized actions between figures with a concept
called field of force. They gave examples, but did
not define how they scored these interactions.
Koppitz (1983) and Lyons (1993) scored only
whether there was interaction between figures.
Rather than scoring interaction per se, most of the
other authors deduced interaction from other vari-
ables. We propose to introduce a level of interac-
tion variable. It scores the degree of interaction
between two figures. We score active interaction
when two figures are engaged in a shared activity
involving action (e.g., playing ball, eating to-
gether, speaking to each other) or when the two
figures share the same kind of activity (e.g., doing
household chores, sharing a picnic). The two fig-
ures have a passive action together if they are
involved in the same passive activity (e.g., watch-
ing TV together, reading books in the same room,
standing in the same place, one figure watching the
other). Sitting around a table doing nothing is a
passive action, whereas sitting around a table talk-
182 WEGMANN AND LUSEBRINK
ing or eating is an active action. Sitting together
each reading separate books is a passive action; if
the book is shared it is an active action; if the two
reading figures are in separate places, there is no
interaction.
2. Facing. In their study, O’Brien and Patton (1974)
scored if the figures were facing each other or the
viewer. They found links between this variable and
the notion of “self-concept”. Inspired by Habe-
nicht (personal communication, April 26, 1996),
Cho (1987), and Chuah (1992), we included a fac-
ing variable. This variable is scored if a figure is
looking towards another figure, rather than to-
wards objects or looking “out of the picture.” This
other figure may, or may not, look back. Each
figure is scored separately. If a figure is oriented
towards another figure but not looking at it, this
variable is not scored. For instance because it is
reading a book, the self may be oriented towards
the father and not look at him.
3. Level of nurturance. Inspired by Burns’ (1982)
scoring criteria for figure nurturing and by Habe-
nicht’s (personal communication, April 26, 1996)
KFD analysis sheet, we define a level of nurtur-
ance variable. It examines the level of nurturance
for each major figure. Feeding/holding is scored if
one figure is taking care of another in very close
contact. If a figure is taking care of another figure
without close contact, cooking/setting table is
scored. Eating is scored when a figure is eating
and taking care of pet/gardening/housework is
scored when a figure is taking care of a pet, a plant
or the house.
Activities
The fourth category analyses the level of activity
of the figures. It contains only one variable.
1. Activity level. We simplified Burns’ (1982) scor-
ing criteria for figure activity level from nine pos-
sible answers to five. Running/sport implies that a
lot of energy is spent. Walking/doing implies that
some movement is drawn, and standing implies
that the figure does not seem to move and is stand-
ing. Sitting is scored if the figure is sitting, even
though it is doing something (like eating) and lay-
ing is scored if the figure is laying.
Sexual Identification
The fifth category assesses the sexual identifica-
tion of the self. It contains two variables.
1. Self drawn like. Inspired by Habenicht’s (personal
communication, April 26, 1996) similar treatment
of figures variable, we propose a self drawn like
variable. This criteria is scored if the self figure is
drawn like one of the parental figures and differ-
ently from the other parental figure: Mother (or
father) is scored if the hair or clothing are drawn
with similar details, or if the self and the mother
(father) are drawn in markedly similar stances.
These similarities must contrast with details used
for other figures and be obvious.
2. Self sharing activity with. To see if the child feels
him/herself closer to one parent than the other, we
added a self sharing activity with variable. It is
scored if the self figure is doing the same, or same
kind of, activity with one parent and not with the
other.
Developmental Level
The sixth category analyzes the developmental
level of the child. It contains five variables.
1. Space organization. According to Lowenfeld and
Brittain’s (1987) description of development
stages in art, we introduced a space organization
variable that scores the representation of space in
the drawing. No space organization is scored when
there is no sense of spacial organization (i.e., the
objects and figures are floating without any rela-
tion to one other). One baseline is scored when the
figures and objects are organized in a line or when
there is one baseline. The drawing suggests that
the child has an understanding of 2D. 3D attempt
is scored when there is an attempt to represent 3D.
For instance, there are many baselines or many
points of view in the drawing (i.e., tilting the table
so we can see what it is on it). 3D awareness is
used when the drawing shows perspective, when
there is a sense of depth, and/or when there are
objects or figures overlapping.
2. Incomplete body. The completeness of the bodies
drawn is another criteria for scoring development
level. Each major figure is analyzed separately.
The incomplete body variable is scored if arms,
legs, trunk, hands or feet are missing; if stick fig-
ures are drawn; if there is a poor integration of
 KFD SCORING METHOD
body parts; or if a part of the body is cut-off the
page. This variable is not scored if parts of the
body are not drawn because they are obscured by
an object or another figure. Missing facial features
are scored separately.
3. Incomplete face. It is scored if eyes or mouth are
missing; if part of the face is cut-off the page; or if
there is a poor integration of the facial features.
This variable is not scored if the nose is missing or
if the face is hidden (e.g., because the figure’s back
is turned).
4. Sexual Differentiation. It is scored if the gender of
all figures (except young children and babies) is
obvious, even though stick figures are drawn.
5. Akinesis. We set an akinesis criteria inspired by
Mostkoff and Lazarus’ (1983) evasion criteria and
by Reynolds’ (1978) motionless or stick figures.
This variable rates whether activities or physical
stances are drawn. It is scored if all figures are
standing facing forwards, as if they were sitting for
a snapshot without any orientation to each other or
to tasks. It is also scored if the figures are drawn
static, despite objects drawn involving an activity
or despite the child’s verbal description that the
figures are engaged in activities.
Method
Once our scoring method was defined and docu-
mented in a manual, we collected KFD drawings from
children from three different continents. This study
included over 120 children. Thirty-seven children live
in a rural town situated near a university city in Swit-
zerland (Froideville, Vaud); 42 children are Taiwan-
ese and live in a university city situated in a rural
region in Taiwan (Hsinchu); and 44 children are Cal-
ifornian, living in a university city (Palo Alto). The
Taiwanese and the Swiss children were not exposed
to cultural influences other than their own (except for
TV and McDonald’s). For the American children, we
chose for the study only those children who, along
with their parents, were born in the USA and had
never lived abroad.
The children of this study were between 7 and 10
years old. They were “nonclinical” children, i.e., they
attended the usual school classes. Each cultural group
completed the KFD test at the same time, in their own
classroom during their usual art class. The data were
collected as part of a battery of tests, including the
Bridge Drawing (Hays & Lyons, 1981). For the KFD
drawing, they were asked to follow Burns and Kauf-
183
man’s (1970) instructions: “Draw a picture of every-
one in your family doing something. Try to draw
whole people, not cartoons or stick people. Remem-
ber to make everyone doing something” (pp. 19 –
20). The instructions were translated in Mandarin
for the Taiwanese children and in French for the
Swiss children. They were given a pencil and a sheet
of plain white paper (8“ ⫻ 11”, A4 in Taiwan and
Switzerland). When the drawings were completed,
the children identified their family members on the
drawings.
Two judges, independent from the study, scored all
the drawings. The judges were graduate students from
University of California Berkeley Extension Post-
Masters Certificate Program in clinical art-therapy.
They were trained in art-therapy techniques and un-
derstood the variables’ definitions. Because they did
not have much clinical experience with KFD scoring
systems, they could easily accept our proposed scor-
ing system. To train the judges to use our scoring
method, we asked them to score, following our man-
ual, a few drawings not included in the study. We
discussed their answers with them. When they had
scored the 121 drawings we compared the scores of
the two judges. First we calculated the percentage of
identical answers to obtain the degree of reliability for
each variable. Then, to compare the reliability results
among the three groups of children, we applied the ␹2
test to verify whether the results were independent
from the cultures.
Results
We decided that a good reliability result is 80% or
more of identical answers between both judges. Re-
sults between 75% and 80% are acceptable. For the
sizes and distances we decided to accept: for short
measurements (up to 40 mm) a difference of 4 mm,
for longer distances (above 40 mm) a 10% difference
with a maximum of 10 mm difference between both
measurements.
When we compiled the percentage of agreements
between both judges for the three samples as a whole,
we obtained a high degree of agreement for 80% of
the variables. The 24 objects and symbols reached
more than 85% agreement between judges, 14 of the
20 variables reached 80% or more agreement, 3 vari-
ables attained an acceptable result, and we obtained
an insufficient percentage of agreement between the
judges for only 3 variables. However, when we sep-
arated the agreement results by population, we saw
184 WEGMANN AND LUSEBRINK

Table 1
Reliability of the Objects and Symbols Variables: Identical Answers Between Both Judges

USA Taiwan Switzerland

A/T a
% b
A/T % A/T % global %c ␹2d

House 42/43 98 41/41 100 35/37 95 98

Emphasis on Roof 42/43 98 36/42 85 36/37 97 93
Emphasis on Wall 42/43 98 29/41 70 34/37 92 87 14.5*
Smoking Chimney 43/43 100 40/42 95 36/37 97 98
Antenna 43/43 100 38/42 90 34/37 92 94
Door 40/42 95 37/42 88 35/37 95 93
Stairs 43/43 100 41/42 98 35/37 95 98
Grid Window 42/43 98 39/42 93 36/37 97 96
Bed 42/43 98 35/41 85 30/37 81 88
Light 40/43 93 37/42 88 34/37 92 91
Roof Figure 43/43 100 42/42 100 37/37 100 100
Cross-shaped Body 41/43 95 39/42 93 36/37 97 95
Cut-off Head 42/43 98 40/42 95 37/37 100 98
Ball 41/43 95 40/42 95 35/37 95 95
Jump Rope 42/43 98 40/42 95 37/37 100 98
Remote Control Device 42/43 98 41/42 98 34/37 92 96
Clouds 42/43 98 41/42 98 37/37 100 98
Sun 43/43 100 41/42 98 36/37 97 98
Moon 43/43 100 39/42 93 37/37 100 98
Stars 42/43 98 42/42 100 37/37 100 99
Snow 42/43 98 42/42 100 35/37 95 98
Pet 41/43 95 42/42 100 36/37 97 98
Coffin 42/43 98 42/42 100 37/37 100 99
Grid 40/43 93 33/42 79 32/37 86 86 3.7

a
A ⫽ agreement: Number of identical answers; T ⫽ total: Number of answer.
b
% ⫽ percentage of identical answers.
c
Global % ⫽ percentage of identical answers for the (3) populations.
␹ test result for the three populations.
d 2

* Level of significance p ⬍ .01.

that these good global results were sometimes mis-
leading, and that they may hide conflicting results
between the three samples. Twenty-two of the 24
objects and symbols still had a high percentage of
agreement between judges for each population (see
Table 1). The grid symbol and the emphasis on wall
symbol attained good results for the Swiss and the
American samples only. They had a lower result for
the Taiwanese population (79% for grid and 71% for
emphasis on wall).The difference for emphasis on
wall is highly significant with the Chi-square test
(␹2 ⫽ 14.5, p ⬎ 0.01).
Differences in reliability results are more frequent
with the descriptive and measurable variables (see
Table 2). Only 7 of the 14 variables that obtained
good global results showed good results for each of
the three populations without significant difference
among them with the Chi-square test: major figure
missing, major figure’s erasure, extended family
members added, distance between figures, encapsu-
lation, self sharing activity with and incomplete face.
Four other variables had good global results; but
when we calculated by population, we found good
results for one or two populations and only acceptable
ones for the other(s): size of figure, level of interac-
tion, level of nurturance and space organization.
These four variables have global results around 80%
and the Chi-square test did not indicate any signifi-
cant difference among the three samples.
Six variables revealed statistically significant dif-
ferences of reliability among the three samples.
Sometimes these differences were found only for one
 KFD SCORING METHOD 185

Table 2
Reliability of the Descriptive and Measurable Variables: Identical Answers Between Both Judges

USA Taiwan Switzerland

A/Ta
% b
A/T % A/T % Global %c ␹2d

Omission
S 42/43 98 42/42 100 37/37 100 99 1.8
M 43/43 100 42/42 100 37/37 100 100
F 43/43 100 41/42 98 36/37 97 98 1.1
Erasure
S 30/37 81 32/36 89 29/32 91 87 1.6
M 34/36 94 34/38 89 23/25 92 92 0.6
F 30/35 86 37/38 97 19/22 86 91 3.5
Extended 38/42 90 41/42 98 36/37 97 95 2.9
Figures’ Sizes
S 29/33 88 29/36 81 23/28 82 84 0.7
M 30/33 91 29/37 78 17/22 77 83 2.5
F 26/29 90 31/38 81 16/21 76 83 1.7
Distances
S/M 23/24 96 27/30 90 19/20 95 93 0.9
S/F 25/27 93 31/31 100 18/19 95 96 2.2
M/F 24/29 83 31/35 89 20/20 100 89 3.8
Compartmentalization 41/43 95 33/42 79 33/37 89 88 5.7*
Encapsulation
S 34/37 92 30/36 83 28/32 88 88 1.2
M 32/35 91 34/38 89 24/25 96 92 0.9
F 31/32 97 36/38 95 21/22 95 96 0.2
O 37/42 88 36/42 86 30/36 83 86 0.3
Barrier
S/M 25/30 83 30/33 91 15/22 68 82 4.7*
S/F 22/29 76 28/32 88 14/20 70 79 2.5
M/F 22/32 69 36/37 97 17/22 77 80 10.2
Figure’s Ascendance
S 37/37 100 29/36 81 28/32 88 90 7.6**
M 34/35 97 33/38 87 23/25 92 92 2.6
F 31/32 97 32/38 84 19/22 86 89 3.1
Interaction
S/M 26/31 84 30/33 91 17/22 77 85 1.9
S/F 24/28 86 30/32 94 18/20 90 90 1.1
M/F 24/30 80 35/37 95 19/22 86 88 3.3
Facing
S/M 26/30 87 33/33 100 13/21 62 86 15.2**
S/F 28/28 100 30/32 94 18/20 90 95 2.6
M/S 26/30 87 31/33 94 16/22 73 86 4.9*
M/F 27/30 90 34/37 92 19/22 86 90 0.5
F/S 25/28 89 30/32 94 17/22 85 88 1.1
F/M 28/30 93 32/38 84 22/22 100 91 4.6*

a
A ⫽ agreement: Number of identical answers; T ⫽ total: Number of answer.
b
% ⫽ percentage of identical answers.
c
Global % ⫽ percentage of identical answers for the three populations.
␹ ⫽ ␹* test result for the three populations.
d 2

* Level of significance p ⬍ .05.

** Level of significance p ⬍ .01.
186 WEGMANN AND LUSEBRINK

Table 2
Continued

USA Taiwan Switzerland

A/Ta
% b
A/T % A/T % Global %c ␹2d

Nurturance
S 32/37 86 35/36 97 30/32 94 92 3.1
M 27/35 77 35/38 92 22/25 88 86 3.5
F 28/32 88 34/38 89 21/22 95 90 0.9
Activity Level
S 24/37 65 26/36 72 17/32 53 64 2.7
M 21/35 60 10/38 26 8/25 32 40 9.5**
F 23/32 72 28/38 74 13/22 59 70 1.5
Self Drawn Like 29/36 81 23/33 70 13/21 62 72 2.5
Self Share Activity 33/36 92 33/33 100 19/21 90 94 3.1
Space Organization 34/43 79 35/42 83 29/37 78 80 0.4
Incomplete Body
S 29/38 76 29/36 81 27/32 84 80 0.7
M 31/35 89 27/38 71 22/25 88 82 4.6*
F 23/32 72 28/38 74 19/22 86 76 1.7
O 27/42 64 24/41 59 21/35 60 61 0.3
Incomplete Face
S 35/38 92 31/34 89 28/32 88 90 0.4
M 33/36 92 32/38 84 25/26 96 90 2.6
F 30/32 94 32/38 84 21/32 94 81 2.5
O 37/42 88 34/41 83 28/35 80 84 1.0
Sexual Differentation 31/42 74 34/41 83 23/35 66 75 3.0
Akinesis 26/42 62 27/42 64 33/35 94 72 12.1**

of the figures tested. Barrier results were good for the
Taiwanese sample, insufficient for the Swiss sample
and were not homogeneous for the US sample (S/M
83%, S/F 76%, M/F 55%). The Chi-square test con-
firms significant differences for the pairs S/M (␹2 ⫽
4.7, p ⬎ 0.05) and M/F (␹2 ⫽ 10.2, p ⬎ 0.05); it did
not for the pair S/F. The incomplete body variable did
not display homogenous results. The Swiss sample
had good results for the three major figures. The US
sample showed a good result for the mother, an ac-
ceptable for the self and an insufficient for the father.
The Taiwanese sample obtained acceptable results for
the mother and the father figures and a good result for
the self. The Chi-square test demonstrated a statistical
difference only for the mother figure (␹2 ⫽ 4.6, p ⬎
0.05). For the other figures, other than the major ones,
the results were insufficient for the three populations.
The facing variable rates six combinations of figures.
Results for these six combinations were not homoge-
neous. Half of these combinations had good results
and showed no significant differences. The other half
showed significant differences: The Swiss sample at-
tained insufficient results for S/M (62%, ␹2 ⫽ 15.2;
p ⬎ 0.05) and M/S (73%, ␹2 ⫽ 4.9; p ⬎ 0.05). The
Taiwanese sample got a lower but still good result for
the combination F/M (84%; ␹2 ⫽ 4.6, p ⬎ 0.05).
Compartmentalization attained good results for the
American and the Swiss samples. The Taiwanese re-
sult was significantly, statistically lower (79%, ␹2 ⫽
5.7, p ⬎ 0.05). Figure ascendance obtained good
results for each population. The American sample had
higher agreement between the judges when the self
figure was rated (␹2 ⫽ 7.6 , p ⬎ 0.01). For the mother
and the father figures, there was no significant differ-
ence between the populations. Akinesis got an insuf-
ficient global result; the result for the Swiss sample
was excellent (94%), whereas the results were insuf-
ficient for the US (62%) and the Taiwanese (64%)
samples. These differences were confirmed with the
Chi-square test (␹2 ⫽ 12.1).
Three variables attained insufficient results. Sexual
differentiation had an global result of 75%. The Tai-
 KFD SCORING METHOD
wanese sample was good (83%), whereas the US
(74%) and the Swiss (66%) were insufficient. The
Chi-square test did not confirm these differences. Self
drawn like got an insufficient global result. The re-
sults were insufficient for the Taiwanese (70%) and
the Swiss (62%) samples, but it was good for the
American sample (81%). These differences were not
confirmed with the Chi-square test. Activity level at-
tained insufficient results for all samples.
Discussion
When we compiled the three samples as a whole,
the good reliability results were misleading: only
three variables seemed to have insufficient agreement
between judges. However, when we calculated the
reliability results for each population and compared
them, we noticed that there are statistically significant
differences among the three populations. A good
overall reliability result for one variable may hide an
insufficient percentage of agreement between judges
for one population; or conversely, an insufficient
global result may hide a good reliability result.
For the objects and symbols we obtained good
global results. When these results were detailed, we
noticed that the reliability was good for the three
samples except for the grid and the emphasis on wall
symbols. These symbols attained an good reliability
result for the Swiss and the American samples only
and got a lower result for the Taiwanese population.
The grid symbol still attained an acceptable result
(79%) and the Chi-square test does not conclude to a
highly significant difference (␹2 ⫽ 3.7). Emphasis on
wall did not reach a sufficient percentage of agree-
ment for Taiwanese sample (71%) and this result
indicates highly significant differences with the Chi-
square test (␹2 ⫽ 14.5). We assumed that emphasis on
wall was not clearly defined. As the Taiwanese chil-
dren draw more often houses than the American and
Swiss children, they draw more walls, thus increasing
the opportunities for disagreement between judges.
For the twenty variables that are not object or
symbol the situation is more complex. Only seven
variables attained good reliability results for each
sample: major figure missing, major figure’s erasure,
extended family members added, distance between
figures, encapsulation, self sharing activity with and
incomplete face. The Chi-square test did not indicate
any significant difference among the three samples.
We concluded that these seven variables are reliable
and that their reliability is independent of the thee
187
cultures tested. Four variables reached an average
result barely above 80% of agreement between both
judges: size of figure, level of interaction, level of
nurturance and space organization. When the reli-
ability was computed for each sample, the result for
one population was below the threshold of 80%. As
the Chi-square test did not show significant differ-
ences among the results of the three samples and, as
each of the results were above 75%, we consider the
results for each population as good. These 11 vari-
ables attained good reliability results without signifi-
cant differences between the three samples. They may
be used for cross-cultural studies with the three pop-
ulations tested. We noticed that even the variables
that rely on subjective appreciation, such as erasure
(changing a Gestalt), or encapsulation (being sepa-
rated from the others), obtained a high percentage of
agreement between both judges.
For six variables, the reliability compiled by pop-
ulations brought to our attention statistically signifi-
cant differences between the three samples. Some-
times these difference were found only for one of the
figures tested.
Compartmentalization attained a good global reli-
ability result. The results for each sample show sig-
nificant differences, with a lower but still acceptable
result for the Taiwanese population (␹2 ⫽ 5.7). Tai-
wanese children tend to draw X-ray houses with each
family member placed in a different room. When the
house occupies the whole surface of the paper, the
drawing gives an impression of compartimentaliza-
tion and was usually rated as such by the judges. Most
of the disagreement between the judges occurred
when X-ray houses were drawn only in a part of the
page and did not involve all of the paper. The dis-
crepancy between reliability results attract our atten-
tion on this Taiwanese feature and raise the question
if these X-ray houses may be considered as compar-
timentalization or not. We wonder if our definition of
the variable compartimentalization includes two dif-
ferent features. This question is all the more interest-
ing since the interpretation of the variable compart-
mentalization, proposed by Burns and Kaufman
(1972), is debated. Some authors agree with them:
Reynolds (1978) defined it as a sign of “inhibition of
strong emotions; isolation; inability to communicate
openly.” Other authors suggested another definition;
for example, McPhee and Wegner (1976) concluded
in their study that
188 WEGMANN AND LUSEBRINK
Compartimentalization seemed to appear re-
peatedly in those drawings (both adjusted and
disturbed) depicting the family members en-
gaged in roles associated with the typical Amer-
ican household. Perhaps in an effort to impose
clarity and order on this assortment of activities,
the subjects employed the use of lines to sepa-
rate the various figures—thus producing the
style defined as Compartmentalization. (p. 490)
Hence, comparison with other variables that give in-
formation about family member interactions and ac-
tivities might help us to better interpret this variable:
Does it indicate separation and/or lack of communi-
cation; or, does it indicate a tendency to organize,
structure space and roles of family members?
With the barrier variable we reached an overall
reliability result near 80%. The Taiwanese drawings
had a better reliability result than the Swiss and
American ones, with a statistically significant differ-
ence for the pair mother/father (␹2 ⫽ 16) and for the
pair self/mother (␹2 ⫽ 4.7). If we calculate the reli-
ability for the American and Swiss drawings only, the
results will be below 80% (77% for self/mother; 77%
for self/father and 66% for mother/father). As the
Taiwanese drawings more often contained compart-
mentalization, the barriers between the pairs of fig-
ures were more obvious. Thus it led to a higher per-
centage of identical answers between judges.
Studying the American and Swiss drawings that got
different scores for this variable, we noticed that most
divergences occurred when an object or another fig-
ure only partially separated the pair of figures. We
can improve our definition if we take partial separa-
tion into account. In addition, it would be useful to
separate barrier from the lines of compartmentaliza-
tion as these two variables might indicate different
features.
The good reliability result of the facing variable is
misleading. Only the result of the Swiss drawings for
the self/mother pair of figures was insufficient. Actu-
ally, the variable was not present at all in the Amer-
ican drawings and only rarely in the Taiwanese, but it
was present a few times in the Swiss drawings. The
Swiss children tried, more often than the others, to
represent figures facing each other. The way the vari-
able is defined does not allow for the ambiguity of the
drawing done by children that do not master the skill
to draw figures in profile. Studies would be useful to
confirm if this variable is actually more often present
in Swiss drawings then in American or Taiwanese
drawings.
The reliability results for the variable incomplete
body are intriguing as they differ from one figure to
the other. For the self figure, the reliability is good
whereas for the father figure it is insufficient. For
these two figures there are no significant differences
between the three samples. On the other hand, for the
mother figure, the Taiwanese reliability result is sig-
nificantly statistically lower with an insufficient per-
centage of agreement between the jugges, while the
reliability result is good for the two other populations.
We have no hypothesis for the reason for the discrep-
ancies of the results. However, we suppose that the
disagreements between judges are related to the way
children at these ages draw hands and feet. Often
these features are suggested and not clearly drawn.
We assume that if we had defined more clearly this
variable, especially the minimum features needed for
hands and feet, it would have improved the reliability
results. The result of this variable for other non-major
figures is not reliable. A drawing could contain to-
gether complete and incomplete other figures. The
scoring of the other figures is debatable because they
must be scored all together as complete or incom-
plete.
Figure ascendance also attained intriguing results.
The American sample had significantly statistically
higher agreement between the judges when the self
figure was rated. For the mother and the father fig-
ures, this variable did not show significant difference
between the populations. We have no hypothesis for
this inconsistency between the figures results.
We obtained low reliability results for akinesis
except with the Swiss children. The scoring sheets
show that one judge scored akinesis on only one
drawing. The other judge scored this variable many
times, especially with the Taiwanese and American
drawings. This leads to more disagreement about
these cultures than the Swiss culture. The definition
of this variable is not clear as it was obviously under-
stood differently by each judge. Nevertheless, it
would be interesting to clarify the definition to find
out if this variable is actually distributed differently in
the three cultures.
The variable activity level, obtained a low reliabil-
ity result for all samples. We made the hypothesis that
the variable’s definition was not accurate enough.
During the schematic stage, at least in the early phase,
children have a poor ability to draw figures in a
clearly recognizable activity. Hence the poor results
 KFD SCORING METHOD
of activity level can be attributed to the developmental
level of the children of the study. The judges probably
had to guess the type of action drawn, thus adding an
important subjectivity to the result. It was probably
difficult for them to decide if the figure was simply
standing or actually doing something. The majority of
disagreements were between the categories of an-
swers standing and doing. If we combine these two
categories together and keep as multiple choices:
moving, standing, sitting and laying, the result is good
with no significant difference with the Chi-square test
among the cultures (Self: 82%, ␹2 ⫽ 0.9; Mother:
91%, ␹2 ⫽ 0.3; Father: 87%, ␹2 ⫽ 2.7).
We obtained an insufficient percentage of agree-
ment between judges for the sexual differentiation
variable with the Swiss and American children but not
with the Taiwanese. For this variable, all the figures
of the drawing were scored together. The drawings
showing partial differentiation got arguable scoring.
The Swiss and American drawings often contained
figures that were sexually recognizable and some that
were not. In the Taiwanese drawings, most of the
figures present a sexual differentiation and reach a
83% of identical answers between the judges. We
assume that if we had proposed a third possibility,
partial differentiation, or if the major figures were
scored separately, we would have had a better reli-
ability result.
Conclusion
To analyze drawings from children of different
cultural backgrounds, we propose a revised scoring
method for the KFD test. We verified the reliability of
the method and demonstrated the importance of
clearly defined variables and the necessity to test the
reliability of the variables with each cultural sample.
We demonstrate that clinicians must be very carefull
when applying the KFD test with children from an-
other cultural background than the one it was de-
signed for. Indeed, a variable may be reliable with one
cultural sample, but not necessarily with another.
Many variables obtained statistically significant dif-
ferent reliability results from one population to the
other. Most of the time these differences were due to
a different distribution of the variable between the
samples. If a variable is more frequent in one popu-
lation and if its definition is not clear, then we may
have more disagreement between the judges for this
population than for the others.
A more interesting reason for variations in the
189
reliability results among the populations is when a
variable was defined so that two different features
were scored together. For instance, the Taiwanese
children often drew X-ray houses with the rooms laid
out over the whole page. This feature looked like
compartmentalization and was scored as such. Dis-
agreement occurred when X-ray houses were not
spread over the whole page. This leads us to wonder
if these X-ray houses are to be considered as com-
partmentalization or some other feature. This brings a
new argument to the debate of the interpretation to be
given to this variable: does it indicate a lack of com-
munication or a tendency to structure and organize.
Additional studies are needed to answer the question
whether the different distribution of the variables be-
tween populations is a consequence of an insufficient
variable definition, or a sign of cultural influence on
the personality. Before this method could be applied
with confidence in clinics, further studies are needed
to learn if the variables can predict phenomena of
clinical importance. The purpose of this article is the
description and the verification of the applicability of
this scoring method for cross-cultural studies, thus we
focused on the cultural differences in the reliability of
the variables. We did not analyse here the differences
of the distribution of the variables among the popu-
lations. Such analysis and the discussion of their clin-
ical implications will help to verify the relevance of
this method in clinics. It will be the topic of a future
article.
In addition to finding cultural differences in the
reliability of the variables, this study shows that the
contribution of cross-cultural studies is to question
and thus to clarify the definitions and interpretations
of the KFD variables. Cross-cultural studies of the
test improve our understanding and use of it by chal-
lenging us to verify the validity of the definition of the
different variables, even when the test is used with
population for whom it was designed.
References
Burns, R. (1982). Self-growth in families: Kinetic Family Draw-
ings (K-F-D) research and application. New York: Brunner/
Mazel.
Burns, R., & Kaufman, S. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-
D). An introduction to understanding children through kinetic
drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Burns, R., & Kaufman, S. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in
Kinetic Family Drawings (K-F-D): An interpretive manual.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Cabacungan, L. (1985). The child’s representation of his family in
190 WEGMANN AND LUSEBRINK
Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD): A cross cultural comparison.
Psychologia, 28, 228 –236.
Chartouni, T. (1992). Self-concept and family relations of Ameri-
can-Lebanese children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, An-
drews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Cho, M. (1987). The validity of the Kinetic Family Drawing as a
measure of self-concept and parent/child relationship among
Chinese children in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Chuah, V. (1992). Kinetic Family Drawings of Chinese-American
children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews Univer-
sity, Berrien Springs, MI.
Elin, N., & Nucho, A. (1979). The use of Kinetic Family Drawing
as a diagnostic tool in assessing the child’s self-concept. Art
Psychotherapy, 6, 241–247.
Fukada, N. (1990). Family drawing: A new device for cross-cul-
tural comparison. Paper presented at the Twenty-Second Inter-
national Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan.
Handler, L., & Habenicht, D. (1994). The kinetic family drawing
technique: A review of the literature. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 62, 440 – 464.
Hays, R., & Lyons, S. (1981). The Bridge Drawing: A projective
technique for assessment in art therapy. The Arts in Psycho-
therapy, 8, 207–217.
Koppitz, E. (1983). Projective drawings with children and adoles-
cents. School Psychology Review, 12, 421– 427.
Ledesma, L. (1979). The Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD) of Fili-
pino adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston
College, Boston, MA.
Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. L. (1987). Creative and mental
growth (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lyons, S. (1993). Art psychotherapy evaluations of children in
custody disputes. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 20, 153–159.
McKnight-Taylor, M. (1974). Perceptions of relationships in low
income Black families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
McPhee, J., & Wegner, K. (1976). Kinetic-Family-Drawing Styles
and emotionally disturbed childhood behavior. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 40, 487– 491.
Mostkoff, D., & Lazarus, P. (1983). The Kinetic Family Drawing:
The reliability of an objective scoring system. Psychology in
the Schools, 20, 16 –20.
Nuttall, E., Chieh, L., & Nuttall, R. (1988). Views of the family
by Chinese and U.S. children: A comparative study of Kinetic
Family Drawings. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 191–
194.
O’Brien, R., & Patton, W. (1974). Development of an objective
scoring system for the Kinetic Family Drawing. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 38, 156 –164.
Reynolds, C. (1978). A quick-scoring guide to the interpretation of
children’s Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD). Psychology in the
School, 15, 489 – 492.
Shaw, J. (1989). A developmental study on the Kinetic Family
Drawing for a nonclinic, Black-child population in the Mid-
western region of the United states. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Urrabazo, R. (1986). Machismo: Mexican American male self-
concept: An interpretation and reflection on the Thematic Ap-
perception test and Kinetic Family Drawing results of Mexican
American teenagers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gradu-
ate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA.